dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Profane abomination
Deletion This article has quite a few problems. It's recycled the image from another monster, it's unclear as to exactly which profane/rock wraith creature it is referring to and doesn't seem to have enough information to warrant a separate article. - 14:52, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :As Kelcat says, there's nothing wrong with having the same image on more than one page. Alexsau1991 also says that. Paragon of Her Kind and Branka share same image.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 14:59, January 27, 2014 (UTC) ::It is a problem if it's unclear as to which entity the article is referring to. Also don't quote other users like that. They are perfectly capable of checking the ongoing discussions themselves.- 15:01, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :::There is nothing wrong with quoting other users, I can quote them as good as scientists and philosophers.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 15:07, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :::: Well, since my name is being brought up, I'll point out that that discussion was in regards to an article that no one was debating should be deleted. In the case of valid articles, there is no point in changing a perfectly appropriate image just for the sake of changing it, which is what was going on in several instances. If you're going to quote me, do it in a context that actually makes sense. Kelcat (talk) 16:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC) ::I do not doubt your ability to "quote good" it is an issue of representation. Quoting without have a linked source is no better than just making things up and even if you do have one, that user may feel differently about this article in particular. I would also ask you to try and stay on topic if possible. - 15:09, January 27, 2014 (UTC) I wonder if a specified picture taken of both its form would help - because I think the article could be kept. By that I mean it would have this Profane form and additionally its arcane horror one (if I remember well that's the figure it's given). -- 15:12, January 27, 2014 (UTC) ::If the article were to be kept, it should really get several better images like Marge suggested, be completely re-written so it's clear as to which monster it is referring to etc etc. I am actually amazed it's been able to avoid getting delete tagged for so long with the current content on the page. If a significant revamp isn't likely to happen, I would argue for deletion for all the reasons outlined.- 15:18, January 27, 2014 (UTC) A better description on the page will help with any confusion as to which creature is this one. As for the image, a new one can be uploaded too. I think the page can be preserved, but it requires a major revision. 15:46, January 27, 2014 (UTC) If we do agree that this article needs improvement instead of being deleted, the deletion template can be safely removed, right? -- 18:20, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :I feel like it should stay if it is indeed a separate creature, but from what I'm reading on this page it looks like a standard Rock wraith that happens to play an important role in the story-- which means that the info on this page should just be merged with that one and then deleted. Kelcat (talk) 18:32, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Actually, it looks like all of this is on the Rock Wraith page, so I'm voting for deletion of this article. Kelcat (talk) 18:35, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :This creature is not exactly a rock wraith like the rest of them. So I think it is inaccurate to list the info in that creature page. 22:01, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :: What are the differences, then? It's been awhile since I've played so I'm just going off of what I see here. The lead of this article states "Profane abomination is a rock wraith possessed by a hunger demon.", which indicates to me that it is a rock wraith, and like I said, the information about that creature is on the rock wraith page (though if it needs to be deleted from there, that's fine). I just don't see the difference, so if it could be clarified that would be helpful. Kelcat (talk) 22:23, January 27, 2014 (UTC) :::Isn't this article meant to be about the one we can actually talk to? Or am I mistaken? Henio0 (talk) 22:29, January 27, 2014 (UTC) ::::Yeap, it's like about a particular creature, like The Dark Theurge. 22:34, January 27, 2014 (UTC) ::::: Okay, yeah, that wasn't clear to me at all. Definitely needs a complete rewrite if it is kept. Kelcat (talk) 23:03, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Then I vote against the deletion, but the article really need overhaul, it pretty much needs to be rewritten. Henio0 (talk) 22:56, January 27, 2014 (UTC) Getting back to images, it's worth mentioning the article could really use an image of when it's actually in it's abomination form which it spends most of the fight in, rather than the rock wraith abomination form it is in for only briefly.- 03:11, January 28, 2014 (UTC) Neutral. In the past, some articles of creatures/enemies were deleted per notability, and because there wasn't much that could be written about them (so most of the content was merged with the related-quest or "parent" enemy page in question). It's never been really consistent regarding that. Anyway, I'm not sure if the enemy is notable enough to have its own page, since it's not a boss (unless I am remembering it wrong). 17:44, January 31, 2014 (UTC) I'm bringing this up again since I have a gameplay now that's currently in the Deep Roads, close to the profane abomination. If this page were to be kept, I would try taking a screenshot too. Although now I gave it more thought and I'm not sure either if this enemy is notable enough to have its own page, but then again there are other things I've seen that had pages and had like two sentences only or so, and those seem to cause no problem (not necessarily enemies, though). So what should be the conclusion? -- 15:27, February 1, 2014 (UTC) :The discussion should be up for a couple of more days since it hasn't been a full week (not that it's required to leave it for that length, but suggested). For now, it's leaning towards keeping the article and just expand it. :It's true that sometimes similar articles are kept even when they have little information, and others have been deleted for the same reason, but it's sometimes hard to know if we should always follow that line of thought (that is, it shouldn't necessarily be the reason why we keep articles or delete them; it depends on the subject itself). 18:41, February 1, 2014 (UTC) I think that since we don't have enough information about this specific creature as a whole, it seems to be the Rock Wraith equivalent of what a Darkspawn Emissary is to Darkspawn Enemies and while it might be like The Dark Theurge, I don't think there's enough information given in game about it for to have it's own page. I think we should just throw this page into a subsection of Rock Wraiths until we get more information about these creatures. And then maybe make its own page depending on if there is enough information to warrant it having its own page. Dabuddah (talk) 11:46, February 3, 2014 (UTC) I came to the conclusion that while it does meet requirements for (enough lines and such), still has no significant role in the story other than being an interactive enemy with a few lines, no relevant past or anything whatsoever. So to summarize, I vote in favor of deletion. -- 15:38, April 15, 2014 (UTC) This demon does have an impact during that quest, but its general involvement is indeed minor. 16:20, April 15, 2014 (UTC) As it stands right now I still don't think this creature is noteworthy enough to have its own article, not to mention the fact that the entire wording of the article is confusing and difficult to understand. It would be better to keep this info with the Rock Wraith page, at least for now. If more of these types of creatures are encountered in the future, and we obtain more info about them, it might then be worthy of being separated out. --Kelcat (talk) 23:48, April 15, 2014 (UTC)